1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Titans to start Ryan Tannehill

Discussion in 'Miami Dolphins Forum' started by bbqpitlover, Oct 16, 2019.

  1. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    1,644
    841
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    I don’t think you can make a case for a player’s irreversible decline in performance without using the comparison of his current performance and his typical performance to make the case. Assuming a sufficiently long career, his career average is his most typical performance.

    If the player is still performing within the range of how he typically performs, you can hardly make the case that he is irreversibly declining.
     
  2. Irishman

    Irishman Well-Known Member

    334
    356
    63
    Oct 16, 2017
    High Point, NC
    Playing at an elite level ALWAYS makes you elite during that time.

    Consistently playing at an elite level makes you one of the all time best. Those two things are different. Don't use the word elite if you mean consistently one of the best. It doesn't get the job done!
     
    Two Tacos and Dol-Fan Dupree like this.
  3. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    1,644
    841
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    Have you noticed that you’re the only person here who is insulting others?
     
    cuchulainn likes this.
  4. AGuyNamedAlex

    AGuyNamedAlex Well-Known Member

    1,696
    1,475
    113
    Sep 12, 2015
    That is fair enough, but either way you can say his play compared to his peers is declining and that is kind of what matters at the end of the day.
     
  5. The_Dark_Knight

    The_Dark_Knight Defender of the Truth

    8,637
    7,027
    113
    Nov 24, 2007
    Melbourne, FL
    When you eliminate the impossible, what ever remains, however unlikely must be the truth...

    Tennessee is 6-1 with Tannehill as their QB and Tannehill leads the league in passer rating.

    Bottom line, he’s as good as many of us defenders said he was
     
  6. Stringer Bell

    Stringer Bell Post Hard, Post Often Club Member

    43,939
    21,516
    113
    Mar 22, 2008
    So Chad Henne is an elite QB because he played elite at times?
     
    Irishman and The Guy like this.
  7. cuchulainn

    cuchulainn Táin Bó Cúailnge Club Member

    11,040
    9,534
    113
    Sep 7, 2012
    Hattiesburg, MS
    Dude, no one said anything different. Not one person said anything about all time great. Don't strawman.

    A "period of time" means the same as "stretch of games", "spurts" and "handful of games". In other words he's never sustained an elite level of play for an entire season, so not "rong".

    Maybe next year.

    And telling some to use a dictionary on a football forum is pretty rich.
     
    adamprez2003, resnor and Irishman like this.
  8. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    1,644
    841
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    I can’t tell if any of that means that he will play at this level consistently, or whether his performance is attributable to internal or external factors or both. People’s historical positions regarding Tannehill have been based on some combination of the foregoing.

    We’re going to need a whole lot more time before anybody’s position regarding Ryan Tannehill can be deemed correct, unless one’s position was that he could play at an elite level for a stretch of six games and that we won’t be able to determine the cause(s) of that with any certainty.
     
  9. Irishman

    Irishman Well-Known Member

    334
    356
    63
    Oct 16, 2017
    High Point, NC
    Yes, he was elite while he played at an elite level.

    Let me use a non-football example to clarify my position using the root word "fast" in place of elite.

    A runner had the fastest one mile time ever recorded during the spring of 1950. At that time he was the fastest miler in the world. Since then that record time has been beaten many times.

    He still was the fastest miler in the world at that time. He was elite

    He is no longer the fastest miler in the world. He is no longer elite. That doesn't take away from the time he was the fastest miler in the world and was elite.

    If you want to argue for good performance over a long period of time you need another word, or better yet, another category in able to make the comparisons you want.

    At one time he was the fastest; now that speed might not even qualify you in a competitive mile race.
     
    RevRick and KeyFin like this.
  10. cuchulainn

    cuchulainn Táin Bó Cúailnge Club Member

    11,040
    9,534
    113
    Sep 7, 2012
    Hattiesburg, MS
    Really don't want to get into splitting hairs or arguing semantics, but in this case, it really sounds like you're redefining the term to suite your own opinion.

    The word fast isn't even in the same category of terms. It's an adjective used to describe motion. "Elite" IS the term for a select group of people or things, and widely accepted for those players who sustain a high level of play over a period of years and who have actual accomplishments in the post season. The very word itself exists to differentiate those people or things from other categories.

    Otherwise, it's just a guy playing at a high level, and most would agree that Tannehill is playing at a high level. Literally no one here though, apart from you, is calling him elite, while all are in agreement that he's currently playing at that level.

    IF he carries this level of play into the post season (IF they make it), and IF he's able to do it for a full season next year, then sure, you may have a case for that. Lot of IFs and unknowns, but I don't think anyone is rooting against him. It'd actually be ironic to see him succeed and make it to the post season and beyond a year after Miami ditched him.
     
  11. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    1,644
    841
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    What I hear you saying here is that the term “elite” indicates something dispositional and stable, versus something situational and unstable.
     
  12. cuchulainn

    cuchulainn Táin Bó Cúailnge Club Member

    11,040
    9,534
    113
    Sep 7, 2012
    Hattiesburg, MS
    You were "that guy" in class, weren't you? :shifty:
     
    The Guy likes this.
  13. Phins_to_Win

    Phins_to_Win Well-Known Member

    318
    455
    63
    Nov 16, 2013
    Is it just semantics we are arguing at this point? I feel like statistics can tell us the likely hood of Tannehill having 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, or 5 games above 91 QB rating in a 5 game stretch. and I don't believe the answer to 4 of those equations are 0%. If you are trying to stick it to me cause I used a term average when I shouldn't have... great... I guess...

    So if someone paid you for an analysis for just the 5 games wanting to know how rare a QB like Tannehill having 4 out of 5 games above 91 QB rating while also posting a 111 QB rating avg across that same time, would you actually send them an answer of all 0%?

    Anybody else want to give me what you think the statistical probability of that is? If Tannehill was the perfect middle I would expect something like:

    0=3% 1=16% 2 = 31% 3 = 31% 4 = 16% 5 = 3%

    So we are dealing with about 20% that qualify for the 1st part, and we then would need a calculation of that 20% how many would have a QB rating > then 111.

    The reason I would use both numbers of games above 91 rating and average QB rating is that I would assume this helps confirm confidence in the rating to not be thrown out of sync with an outlier. For example if a QB has an average rating of 111, but it is based on 2 strangely high games, vs 3 sub par games, then the overall stat becomes considerably less impressive.

    I fully except that a different QB might skew the percentages a little bit, but I don't think Tannehill's average here as a Dolphin would skew it too much.
     
  14. JPPT1974

    JPPT1974 SB LIV 2020

    370
    71
    28
    Apr 15, 2012
    Really team is thriving and glad Ryan found a home and where he can have it to his liking!
     
  15. Phins_to_Win

    Phins_to_Win Well-Known Member

    318
    455
    63
    Nov 16, 2013
    Actually the first part of your post was all I really cared about getting you to state. Some of your posts seemed like you weren't giving him the credit for what he was doing on the field. Its completely fair to have more of a "wait and see mentality" for elite discussion.

    Of course there were a lot of other arguments that have been made on these forums that will be more easily provable.

    such as:

    He can't lead a team to the playoffs
    He is a backup QB that nobody wants
    He is already worse then "insert last years rookie here" and its provable
    He can't win without having the perfect surroundings
    He doesn't process things quick enough to be good in the NFL
    He will never break the top 10 list of QB
    He doesn't elevate the players around him
    He falls apart during big games
    He falls apart against good defenses
    He can't play well in stretch.
    He will never win a playoff game.

    and a couple hundred more. I think his current play should at least be turning heads, and making people start to consider giving him a clean slate and letting him prove it to them again.

    And did I mention he has been really really fun to watch?
     
  16. cbrad

    cbrad . Club Member

    7,398
    8,683
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    For that specific question (4 out of 5 games above 91 AND 111 average rating) I'd tell them there's no way to solve it that I know of. If however you restrict it to just 4 out of 5 games above average without requiring that the average rating is 111, then sure that can be solved because that's a binomial probability and it's 15.62%. However, note that the 15.62% is the same whether those 5 ratings were {91.01, 91.01, 91.01, 91.01, 0} or {158.3, 158.3, 158.3, 158.3, 90.9} or ANY OTHER set of possible ratings where 4 out of 5 are technically above average and one is not. Same probability the way you posed the question.

    In other words when you try to categorize things the way you're doing you are literally ignoring the actual problem at hand and removing all the information that would tell us whether what Tannehill is doing is statistically significant or not. Your question is simply wrong!!

    The way to answer these questions is precisely how I answered them in post #771:
    https://www.thephins.com/threads/titans-to-start-ryan-tannehill.94693/page-20#post-3227692

    As of right now what Tannehill has done in Tennessee is both statistically significant relative to his Miami years (meaning the Miami years + random variation cannot explain the Tennessee games) AND it's statistically significant on a year-by-year basis: not all years are consistent with the hypothesis they come from the same QB (have the same mean + random variation).

    The tests to use are the 2 sample t-test with unequal sample sizes and ANOVA, with both applied to adjusted ratings. There's no more I can tell you dude. You keep asking meaningless questions no matter how intuitive they may seem to you. And no this isn't a semantics issue per se. It's an issue of not understanding probabilities with continuous distributions.
     
    The Guy likes this.
  17. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    1,644
    841
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    Here’s something interesting in my opinion.

    If we toss Tannehill’s first game for Tennessee aside, his average passer rating over his other six games for Tennessee has been 122.2.

    There was another quarterback earlier this century who changed teams from one year to the next, and he posted an average passer rating of 112.1 over his first six games with the new team, likewise tossing his first game for that team aside.

    Why is that meaningful?

    Because as Tannehill has done it, the average passer rating in the league has been roughly 91; when the other quarterback did it, the average passer rating in the league was 78.3.

    Four of the other quarterback’s five games featured passer ratings greater than 100, which he had achieved only 12% of the time in his previous 84 games.

    Similarly, four of Tannehill’s six games featured a passer rating of 112 or greater (adjusting for era here), which he had achieved 17% of the time in his previous 89 games.

    So what we see here is that there is a quarterback who changed teams from one year to the next, following a career of similar duration and quality to Tannehill’s, and then performed strikingly similarly to Tannehill during a similar number of games with his new team.

    Would anyone like to venture a guess who that other quarterback is?
     
    Last edited: Dec 3, 2019
  18. KeyFin

    KeyFin Well-Known Member

    6,340
    8,302
    113
    Nov 1, 2009
    Pure guess here- Drew Brees?
     
    The Guy likes this.
  19. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    1,644
    841
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    Good guess.

    Jake Plummer.
     
    KeyFin likes this.
  20. Pauly

    Pauly Season Ticket Holder

    3,145
    3,065
    113
    Nov 29, 2007
    I have been a long time supporter of Tannehill here, but that is an excellent point. He has to convert this stretch of 6 good games to 10 good games plus some good games in the playoffs before we should jump on any bandwagons.
     
    cuchulainn and The Guy like this.
  21. resnor

    resnor Derp Sherpa

    13,279
    7,494
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    New Hampshire
    I don't necessarily agree that the Plummer comparison, while certainly interesting, is accurate. I never really watched Plummer, so I'm going off mostly stats, but Plummer always had a terrible td-int ratio, and threw for significantly fewer yards than Tannehill, although I'm sure that would need to be adjusted. So I think Plummer was a worse QB, and that one year for him was a pretty big outlier. Tannehill had at least been a better overall QB compared to Plummer before the trade, and has at least put up some stretches before that were really good.
     
  22. flounder97

    flounder97 Active Member

    307
    239
    43
    Jun 7, 2010
    Richmond, VA
    Plummer is a gun-slinger’s gun slinger. Total feast or famine risk taker. Made Farve look cautious.
     
    RevRick, Pauly and KeyFin like this.
  23. cbrad

    cbrad . Club Member

    7,398
    8,683
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    Here are the year-by-year z-scores for both:

    Jake Plummer
    1997: -0.3853
    1998: -0.2651
    1999: -2.4579
    2000: -1.0236
    2001: 0.1112
    2002: -1.5712
    2003: 1.1405
    2004: 0.1300
    2005: 0.9284
    2006: -1.1369

    Plummer with Arizona (1997-2002): z-score = -0.8918
    Plummer with Denver (2003-2006): z-score = 0.2977
    Overall career z-score = -0.4554

    Ryan Tannehill
    2012: -0.8259
    2013: -0.3630
    2014: 0.3940
    2015: -0.1698
    2016: 0.3739
    2018: -0.0167
    2019: 2.0818 (so far)

    Tannehill with Miami (2012-2018): z-score = -0.1166
    Tannehill with Tennessee so far (2019): z-score = 2.0818
    Overall career z-score so far = 0.0101

    Plummer's game-by-game ratings from Arizona to Denver are statistically significant, so that change of surroundings had a "real" effect on his performance. So far that's true with Tannehill too but after only 7 games while with Plummer it's 54.

    So yes Plummer is way worse than Tannehill, but the comparison might turn out to be a good one if we're just talking about how a new team can improve a QB's performance in a statistically significant way.
     
    Last edited: Dec 3, 2019
    Pauly, The Guy and KeyFin like this.
  24. KeyFin

    KeyFin Well-Known Member

    6,340
    8,302
    113
    Nov 1, 2009
    Out of curiosity, how rare is Tannehill's z-score for this season? Many here are not math guys so they probably can't translate that into real-world comparisons like you can (myself included). It seems extremely high though.
     
  25. Irishman

    Irishman Well-Known Member

    334
    356
    63
    Oct 16, 2017
    High Point, NC
    There is a significant difference between "splitting hairs" and knowing what words mean. They have already been defined and without your help, thank goodness.

    It's obvious our different positions on this topic are clear.

    You over generalize a term to fit your narrative and I use appropriate words.

    I have a 21 year old grandson who does the same thing you do. I call it written mumbling. I'm fairly certain he is going to have trouble dealing with the world as he gets older if he doesn't change. In a way, watching your posts confirms what I see in his future - great confusion.
     
  26. cbrad

    cbrad . Club Member

    7,398
    8,683
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    IF that were over a full 16 game season it occurs 1.868% of the time. Of course, the fewer games you have the confidence intervals are larger (the range of "true" abilities that would produce a z-score of 2.0818 is larger), but yes it's extremely high.
     
    KeyFin likes this.
  27. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    1,644
    841
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    2003 was the year in question for Plummer that I outlined above, and if you look there, you see that his performance from 2002 to 2003 actually increased by about a half a standard deviation more than Tannehill’s has increased between last year and this year.

    What’s also noteworthy in my opinion is how Plummer leveled off after that, which again argues for the need for more time here to evaluate what’s going on with Tannehill.
     
  28. KeyFin

    KeyFin Well-Known Member

    6,340
    8,302
    113
    Nov 1, 2009
    Yeah, but Plummer went from a -1.5 (pretty bad year) to a +1.14 (really good year). Tannehill went from a -0.01 season (where he played hurt) to a +2.08 season.

    The only reason Plummer took such a leap is because he played so horribly in '02 with 18 TD's and 20 TD's. Comparing that to an injured Tannehill who was essentially dead-on average last season doesn't feel like apples to apples here.
     
    resnor likes this.
  29. Sceeto

    Sceeto Well-Known Member

    12,456
    5,069
    113
    Oct 13, 2008
    New York
    th.jpg

    I'm sorry, but you guys are losing your minds. Are you serious with all of this? Is it going to go on for forty pages of the same? Tanne has matured. He's in a better situation. We know about Philbin. Gase is the biggest joke of a coach. A "scam" as boy, dj mentioned awhile back. Look at what he's doing with the NJ Jets and Darnold. He's a joke. Pretty much the whole staff was a joke. You don't need to go in circles, over and over again with your freaking Z scores and QBR BS, etc, etc, etc. He's doing better in a better situation. Leave it at that. Good for him. Tanne wasn't a douche when he was here. He was a tough, stand up guy. He tried his best given the circumstances. So, good for him. He's also grown and matured. Leave it at that! How many times are you going to go in these same stupid circles and expect something to change in these asinine debates. This is like paralysis by over analysis. The idol mind is the devil's playground. Some of yours has turned into a freakin' amusement park. Take a deep breath and let it go.

    Sorry, it just had to be said. :sidelol:
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Dec 4, 2019
  30. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    1,644
    841
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    No the point is only that a QB can experience a tremendous jump (even bigger than Tannehill‘s) from a change in scenery, but which is only temporary.

    Again the issue is whether whatever variables are necessary to facilitate Tannehill‘s performance at this level can be sustained.

    This again illustrates the distinction between the quarterback who is dispositionally average or worse and can perform very well when the stars align, and the quarterback who is dispositionally above average or elite and doesn’t need the stars to align to perform at that level.

    When the stars align, they usually don’t stay aligned for long.
     
  31. AGuyNamedAlex

    AGuyNamedAlex Well-Known Member

    1,696
    1,475
    113
    Sep 12, 2015
    In other words for people who may not get it, Plummer started much farther back so getting to where he did was a more significant jump from the normal and thus should in theory be more surprising.

    Example: While neither may be likely, if you asked me whether the #12 or #32 QB in the league would be more shocking top end up in the top 3, I'd obviously say the #32.
     
    The Guy likes this.
  32. The_Dark_Knight

    The_Dark_Knight Defender of the Truth

    8,637
    7,027
    113
    Nov 24, 2007
    Melbourne, FL
    No we don't need a whole lot more time. Tannehill is a proven winner. He won in Miami, he's winning in Tennessee. One thing you and many others seem to forget...football is a TEAM sport. It's not a game where a quarterback goes out an puts on a staged one on no-one Colin Kaepernick style display of talent. It's a game where offensively, 4 5 or even 6 defensive players are charging like bulls in a china shop to crush the quarterback and that quarterback can only do what he can based on the protection of the 5 offensive linemen in front of him.

    I don't care who you are...from Tom Brady, Drew Brees, Aaron Rodgers, Phillip Rivers, Matt Ryan...or even Ryan Tannehill, if you don't have protection on the line and a balanced running game to go with your passing game, you're going to lose.

    Tennessee is finally a TEAM that has everything it needs to win...including a winning quarterback.
     
  33. cuchulainn

    cuchulainn Táin Bó Cúailnge Club Member

    11,040
    9,534
    113
    Sep 7, 2012
    Hattiesburg, MS
    There is literally no one agreeing with your POV, but do go on. This is reminiscent of the arguments over whether Joe Flacco and Eli Manning was elite. At least both had post season accomplishments.

    I have no doubt your grandson has much fun at your expense. Happy Holidays.
     
  34. Irishman

    Irishman Well-Known Member

    334
    356
    63
    Oct 16, 2017
    High Point, NC
    No, but its easy to see which kind of guy you were in class.
     
  35. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    1,644
    841
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    What you're arguing here is a common refrain, that Tannehill's surroundings in Miami were so bad that they prevented him from playing at the level he can and otherwise would.

    For the people who believe that, I'll be interested to hear how they explain Tannehill's performance in Tennessee if it should plummet back to his customary level.

    Will it then be that the surroundings in Tennessee have gone from amazing to insufficient, or will it be that Tannehill is insufficient? If it's the former, how many teams will Tannehill need to play for before we can attribute his performance to him and not his surroundings?

    Another good question we can ask this point:

    For people who thought (or still think) Tannehill's development and career were ruined by his early surroundings in Miami, is that still the case, or has he now somehow surmounted his early-career developmental "trauma"?
     
  36. KeyFin

    KeyFin Well-Known Member

    6,340
    8,302
    113
    Nov 1, 2009
    You phrased both of those summations in absolutes- "x" happened because of "y". That's not how player development in the NFL works though. For instance, it's true that Philbin asked him to do some things counter-productive to development (always stay in the pocket) and a times, his supporting cast wasn't that impressive. But how could you possibly place a percentage of blame to each of those things? It's an un-arguable argument since there's no possible way to measure all the variables....much less know what they actually are.

    But even worse, you're asking folks to present a compelling argument with all those unknown AND make excuses for your premise before it actually happens....can you see why that would be a problem? Nobody comes here to find ways to argue while you try to disprove their own beliefs.

    So if you want to argue that RT has peaked temporarily and will eventually crash back down to Earth-

    1) Actually say that without the all semantics
    2) Build out your own argument instead of asking others to do the opposite...only so you can say "that's wrong"

    As I said earlier, I personally believe RT has always been a top-15 quarterback that's always been among the worst around handling pressure. In games the scheme helps him get past that pressure, he's more like a top-5 passer. When he's pressured hard consistently, he's more like bottom-5. And I think that just about explains his entire career...lousy coaching and all.
     
    Last edited: Dec 4, 2019
    PhinFan1968 and resnor like this.
  37. djphinfan

    djphinfan Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    96,517
    49,389
    113
    Dec 20, 2007
    Tannehill could not play at the level Fitzpatrick has been playing on this team..jmo..

    Tannehill in the playoffs when the speed of the game increases and pressure inevitably will break down in critical situations. On the road, is what he has to prove in his game..When he does that I will be proven wrong about him..jmo
     
  38. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    1,644
    841
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    I'm not asking anybody to do anything. I'm simply elucidating the dynamics of the situation as they pertain to the strong positions others have taken. The questions were rhetorical.
     
  39. Sceeto

    Sceeto Well-Known Member

    12,456
    5,069
    113
    Oct 13, 2008
    New York
    Entropy, man. It will get us all.
     
    The Guy likes this.
  40. Pauly

    Pauly Season Ticket Holder

    3,145
    3,065
    113
    Nov 29, 2007
    Like a lot of things Tannehill related there is an awful lot of good and bad happened at the same time in Miami.

    One example is Lazor refusing to allow him to audible.
    When Miami were tied or ahead and Lazor called a good balance of pass/rush and Tannehill posted very good numbers when tied or ahead when Lazor was OC. When Miami were behind Lazor abandoned the run, and opposing defenses knew this so they dialed up exotic blitzes and disguised coverages because they knew they didn’t have to defend the run and Tannehill’s numbers suffered.

    Another example is Tannehill consistently throwing short of the sticks on 3rd down with Gase as HC.
    Gase is calling exactly the same plays with exactly the same results in New York. They help Tannehill’s completion % and passer rating, but it doesn’t do much to help win the game.

    My final example is the OL supporting him.
    The OL in Tennessee and most of his OL combinations in Miami are far from elite. The big difference I see in Tennessee is that the line is consistently bad, where in Miami the line would block like all-pros one play and then allow 2 free rushers the next. Tannehill works best with consistency and predictability. If the line in Tennessee starts to block unpredictably, even if the overall pressure % remains the same, then I expect Tannehill’s performance to decline.

    What I expect is that while Derek Henry is healthy and Tennessee play complementary football that he will continue to put up good solid numbers. I don’t expect him to sustain a level as high as he has for the last 6 games. However, if the Henry gets injured or the OC has a brain explosion and they start asking Tannehill to throw the ball 40-50 times a game against defenses who are prepared for that to happen I expect his numbers to crash.
     
    Tin Indian and resnor like this.

Share This Page